I didn’t study it at all, just a quick glance. Looking closely it indeed is significantly different in detail not just colour/brightness, so not as it was painted even if the colours are more like the original painting The smile is still enigmatic to me, but less so.
The one on the left also isn’t as the original is commonly seen. According to Wikipedia it’s more like
And slightly digitally retouched, also from Wikipedia and more like I seem to remember it from pictures:
And the more colorful one above on the right is actually a copy by an apprentice of Leonardo da Vinci, which is in the Prado. It was therefore painted at the same time as LdV’s, but was restored in 2012, until which it had been either considered an LdV original or an unimportant copy. The two Wiki pages are not in agreement. Most likely it was considered different things at different times, and relatively unimportant prior to the restoration. It’s from a slightly different perspective and sufficiently different overall that I would not draw too many conclusions from it regarding the original colors in LdV’s version. This one as seen now was actually found under yet another ML copy that had been painted over it.
1 Like
I was thinking more about what the lady herself looked like at the time behind the portrait - the model herself - irrespective of artistic intervention.
5 Likes
No way of knowing - unless Da Vinci painted an accurate rendition!
Yeah baby
2 Likes
Huh? There is no doubt that an apprentice of LDV lived and painted at the same time as LDV
Ok, or one of his apprentices.
Now I have no idea what you are talking about. My only use of “was therefore” in my post was, as far as I find, to say that it was therefore painted at the same time (obviously not literally, but the same age)
Like you, I hadn’t looked that closely - it looked to me like a cleaned version. I still prefer it, though.
My apologies, i was actually replying to @TOBYJUG
and have no idea how my attempt at this quote grabbed that bit of yours. I can only imagine it was a too-sensitive touch screen as I selected, or thought I selected. I agree that read against your post it doesn’t make any sense!
Hahaha, thanks for the clarification. So weird 
I am really laughing out loud here. And I need it, watching CNN
Hm something that a lot of people believe in, but really is a fake - just another myth
This looks amazing, ultra relistic and very stable which i much prefer and some others don’t. It’s lust personel preference just as many gamers prefer 60fps because these 60fps games have been around a long time and people just get accustom to it just like the traditional film viewing method at the cinema when watching partially blurred images and the wearing of analogue film.
This makes me think of the Star Wars reboots since the originals.
The first reboots CGI effects, along with many other CGI laden movies at this time tried to get all details as pinpoint as possible. Perhaps to showcase the latest technology. But, thinking about an image that should feature a background, a middle ground and a foreground - most scenes whilst looking great on a large screen did little to convey any sense of space and the size of things in relation to that space. Like a big flattening out.
Whereas the newest reboots and latest CGI laden movies have gone someway to mimic natural eyesight and analogue representations. With some changing detail focus between those different planes of perception - back, Middle and fore. Giving to my eye a more reasonable realistic sense of depth and space and the contents within.
Hey … stop talking about me like that …
We read it also from the same persons who comment these posts…
1 Like
So I’ve got this cd…
Chris Carter Chemical Lessons. Volume One. Mainly synth driven electro pop ripped on my Unitiserve straight out of its box fresh case.
I also have ripped this album after the cd was given some treatment by this…
Using soft, smooth as a baby’s bum kitchen paper.
The two rips sound different in presentation. Bass softer and more forward. Details leaving the confines of the speakers and being over there more. Treble having more shimmer. Mid bass more body.
Can anyone explain to me what’s really going on here ?
Are you sure you didn’t take a swig of that stuff?
11 Likes